Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

AfD notifications

I was thinking of some ways to gain even more utility out of the new notifications system. One that I thought of would be the notification of the 5 major contributors of an article that it is up for deletion. Basically, a bot could find the five major contributors, and link their user names on the deletion discussion page. Assuming they haven't chosen not to receive those notifications, the editors would receive a notification saying their name had been mentioned in the discussion. Does anybody have thoughts on this? Ryan Vesey 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, 5 might be a bit much. I would just say the creator for now, and we can expand it later on if people like the idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This would have to be done carefully. If you select the 5 contributors who added the most bytes to a page then you might end up notifying people who merely adjusted formatting or added infoboxes and categories and who aren't going to care much about the outcome of the deletion discussion. If the article history is very short then you might end up notifying people who fixed typos. Notifying the creator is safer ground, but even then there are situations where it isn't appropriate (the creator is indef-blocked, is an unregistered user, or who didn't write any of the content). Hut 8.5 08:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• And number of edits made isn't a good metric either, because some editors use preview and others save each single-word edit as an edit. But I can see merit in notifying editors other than the article creator, especially where they created a redirect and 2 years later someone built an article, that sort of thing! Not sure what the solution is. PamD 08:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Notifying the creator is certainly a great first step. J04n(talk page) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree, this would be great if we could pull it off. One idea might be to scale it with the size of the article - say, notify the creator if it is less than a year old or has less than 50 edits or some such, the top two contributors if it is older or has up to 200 edits, the top three if it has more edits, and so on. We might also look at the notice requirements at WP:FAR, since they routinely notify major contributors when a featured article is submitted for review/delisting. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. A notification is quite a minor alert - you get notified if your username is mentioned anywhere, for example. It would therefore be reasonable to notify every editor of an article at AFD. If the article is a new one being nominated by NPP then there won't be many notifications. If the article has been around for years and picked up many minor edits, then it seems appropriate to give it a larger number of notifications. The number of notifications will thus vary in proportion to the age of the article and that seems ideal. Warden (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's a very bad idea. If I revert some piece of vandalism in an article I'm not going to care if it gets nominated for deletion years later. Same goes for typo fixes, formatting fixes, adding infoboxes or categories, and most other sorts of cleanup edits. People who do lots of this work will get swamped with useless notifications and will get very annoyed or opt out. Hut 8.5 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I honestly don't think this would be used very often once it was tweaked to avoid excessive notifications (no multi-notifications on articles with under 50 edits; the metric for the top-five doesn't count HG, TW, RB, AWB, vandalism filtered, Bot, or undo edits; and the top-five must have statistically significantly more edits than other editors on the article). Honestly, how many articles go to AfD with more than 50 or 100 edits? The vast majority have a handful from one person, plus a declined speedy/contested prod. And those AfDs of an article with a significant history... either are in bad faith or will already get spread around the grapevine by concerned editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warden is proposing to notify everyone in the edit history of the nomination. For instance I would have been notified a few days ago of the nomination of Elise Jackson, where I removed an inapplicable cleanup template two years ago. If extended to include proposed deletion I would be told about Street Fighter X Tekken: The Devil Within, where I removed some copyvio in December. Hut 8.5 12:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is absolutely a bad idea. AFD already suffers from low levels of participation. If we encourage an influx of users who have a stake in retaining unsuitable content we will either end up with more conflict over closes and accusations of supervotes for admins assessing policy rather than counting snouts or consensus will end up reflecting numbers not policy. Its already custom to notify creators and that should be enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Can three related articles be considered in one AfD?

This is a policy question. If this is the wrong place, please tell me where to go. Can two, three, or four related articles for deletion be considered in one request? If they were listed separately, can they be consolidated? The particular example has to do with a book and two of its authors being separately nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to make a tweak to the policy to add the example of a book and its author that are considered not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In many such cases, the notability is borderline, and the appropriate course is to redirect one to the other--usually I suggest redirecting the book to the author, as the author is likely to write other books and thus the article has potential for expansion. Otherwise, when it's just two, it's easy to prepare both AfD statement, say something like "see the AfD for .., below/above" and submit them right after each other. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Detection of misused Article for deletion/dated

Is there a process for detecting misuse of {{Article for deletion/dated}}? This is in relation to these four edits where a chunk of Wikicode, including a {{Article for deletion/dated}}, was copypasted from one article (presumably Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu) to each of the others. It's demonstrable that these were not valid AFD noms, because (i) the four chunks are identical save for the number of blank lines; (ii) the parameters |timestamp=20130509202904 |day=9 and |date=9 May 2013 do not match the actual dates and times of the edits; (iii) the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu does not list any of the four pages in question. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If the templates aren't removed before the AfD is closed then it would presumably show up on User:Snotbot/AfD report as an article with a link to a closed AfD. Hut 8.5 10:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

But until the {{Article for deletion/dated}} templates are removed - which judging by your comment won't happen without manual intervention - it not only gives the mistaken impression that the article is up for AFD, but also confuses the reader who clicks this article's entry and gets taken somewhere which doesn't mention the name of the article upon which the fake {{Article for deletion/dated}} had been placed. Waiting for User:Snotbot/AfD report could take up to three weeks, because AFDs aren't necessarily closed in seven days - there are valid reasons for granting extensions.

When a valid {{Article for deletion/dated}} is removed improperly, I'm pretty sure there is a bot which restores that notice and also templates the perp. What I'm asking for is the equivalent opposite: when an invalid {{Article for deletion/dated}} is added improperly, we should have a bot which removes that notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Bolton AfD

I need someone to complete the process here. The AfD tag has already been removed once and I have restored it. The explanation is on the article's talk page. 137.147.76.44 (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Qworty

There was recently a sock puppet investigation of User:Qworty (more info) - however no one looked into his AfD history. Qworty was very active in AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is someone volunteering to cross-reference his socks and see what he's tainted by his participation, if not outright coopted by socking? Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• He started an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Helm. Note that at the end he complains about three of the keeps were sock puppets, apparently by the guy who created his own Wikipedia page. That guy was only blocked for a whole week as punishment. [1] Is that a mistake? Socking only gets you a week punishment? Dream Focus 03:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that blocking isn't punitive in nature, but is an incapacitative remedy and deters future poor behavior. See WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goals. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• An administrator has removed the site ban [2] notice at [[User:Qworty].  If this editor is still banned, why is the notice gone?  Also, from what I read of the SPI notice there are no confirmed sockpuppets.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• This editor is definitely still banned, per the ban discussion and the listing on WP:LOBU. The user page seems to have been blanked because if some issues relating to real-life media coverage, and lack of a ban notice on a userpage certainly doesn't mean the editor isn't banned. Hut 8.5 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Help

Yesterday I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 23#In lieu of flowers. I don't see any of the usual prompt discussion. The thing is the page has already been deleted twice and I am not sure a proper active AfD page was created. Can somebody what's going on? trespassers william (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it. There was already a deletion debate in 2008, and the template is pointing at that rather than a new one. Give me a few minutes. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Since there was already an AFD, the next step is to create an AFD with the added suffix of (2nd nomination) or whatever at the end. It's a bit confusing. I've completed those steps for you - the debate is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In lieu of flowers (2nd nomination), and has been added to the log by transclusion (thus). You should be all set. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PWWA Championship nomination for AfD

Can some one please complete my AfD nomination for this article? Thanks. 101.172.85.56 (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWWA Championship. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete IP AfD

An IP editor began an AfD at Zagreus (audio drama), but appears to have forgotten to put a note here. (There was then a complicated series of edits, leaving one user banned for sock block evasion, but an admin has now put things back to the incomplete AfD.) Can someone tidy things up please? Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done - But if the IP editor was involved in sockpuppetry or the like, the tag could easily have been reverted. Feel free to do so if I missed something. For now, the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zagreus (audio drama). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

AFD to keep an article?

I wrote an article called Han-Nom which my Wiki-stalker and various other editors are insisting we must get rid of. This issue has been dragging on months, and it would be nice to get some closure. Would it make sense for me to bring it here? Kauffner (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In practice, generally not. When nominating an article, you have to articulate a rationale in favor of deleting the article. You don't want the article deleted, and have said so - so any such rationale would be questioned on that basis. Your best play at this point, if you intend for the article to be kept, is to look at the reasons being offered for its deletion and refute them as if there were an AFD. They are concerned about notability? Show sources that confirm it. They can't/won't find sources? Find them first. Etc etc. You don't need an AFD to anticipate what the likely arguments are. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That said, looking at the article in more depth, it seems that other editors are proposing that it be merged as a result of a merge discussion - where's that merge discussion? I can't seem to find it. A merge is not at all the same thing as a deletion, but of course you know that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's here. I don't expect that much of the article would survive a merger. Kauffner (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a merge discussion, that's one guy saying it's unanimous and another proposing the merge, with you arguing against it. 2-1 does not consensus make. Thus my confusion - the comments seemed to imply that another discussion had taken place. This article has the appearance of a well-organized and properly sourced work, but I don't know enough about the topic to judge it on the merits. Two options seem most obvious - have them specify exactly what they consider OR and what is not and (thus) what they would merge and what would be lost, or ask for more eyes on the discussion in the hopes that some other perspective will clarify things. If there's some flaw in a template, as they claim, then they need to be discussing that as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Of course, it wasn't just me who wrote the article. I have to give credit to LiliCharlie, who helped me out with character display issues and a wrote a template so they can appear in the right font. He supports the article as well, as you can see here. He doesn't want to be part of the public merger debate. If you have read it, I am sure you can understand why. There's more of the merger debate here. It's just more of same sort of grandstanding. Kauffner (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Ultraexactzz well said, you are absolutely correct, that's "not a merge discussion, that's one guy saying it's unanimous and another proposing the merge, with [the article creator] arguing against it, 2-1." The link given is exactly that. However that link isn't the merge discussion, but is the post-merge discussion discussion on a different page of what to do next. The actual merge discussion is at Talk:History of writing in Vietnam#Proposed merge from Han-Nom, where the original merge tag was placed by User:BabelStone (FWIW whose User page self-identifies as a university professor and published expert on Chinese scripts), BabelStone's merge was seconded by myself (No.2), thirded by User:Itsmejudith (No.3), fourthed by User:Kanguole (No.4), and now by User:Gaijin42 (No.5).

Unfortunately, while I'm sure Kauffner means well, the problem here is that the term "Han-Nom" doesn't exist as a subject, as Itsmejudith has explained several times the hyphen, eg of the Han-Nom Institute, is a Vietnamese was of saying "chu Han and chu Nom," in other words "Chinese-language written by Vietnamese in Vietnam during Chinese cultural domination" + "Vietnamese-language written using adapted Nom characters".... which already have two large separate articles. Plus a third article on the actual Literature of Vietnam. 5 editors say we don't need an article on "Han & Nom", it's surplus (and contains a lot of duplicated content). This is exactly what WP:MERGE is meant for, creating WP:FORK. Anyone, please join the discussion, your input will be warmly welcomed. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur that you should not create an AFD with the intent on keeping the article. However, based on my layman's reading of the two articles, the argument for merging them is very strong. They are both discussing use of Chinese chars to write Vietnamese writing, and both articles are using the other article's title in its own text extensively. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the original reason I wrote the article is still valid: Non-Latin characters shouldn't be cluttering up the running text. They should be in a language template. Such a template needs an explanatory article to link to. A template of this kind has been around for years. It's descriptor is Han-Nom, so that's what I named the article. Without the template, Han-Nom would just be a highly detailed article about an obscure term -- but there is certainly no rule against that. Kauffner (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's an argument against the merge, you need to make it in the merge discussion. I don't know if a template needs a single article to link to, but please do make the point and then we need to ask for the merge discussion to be closed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As per Gaijin42 and Itsmejudith. User:Ultraexactzz we really need your and other 3rd party editor eyes on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal to add; the consensus for a merge of some sort seems clear. I will note that a template can link to a relevant section of a larger article just as easily as it can link to an article, so that's not an issue for this article. Beyond that, the subject is absolutely outside my expertise, so I can't really add anything on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, and think that a valuable role for AfD would be to get wider-community consensus in such cases.

However this view is not widely held. In practice, using AfD in this way will see the AfD summarily closed and you censured for disruption instead. I can't recommend it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, we routinely see editors propose changing AFD to Articles for Discussion (rather than deletion), but there's never consensus for it. Something to think about, perhaps - but it's already such a high-traffic area of the project... I don't know if it would have the benefits you'd expect. Worth considering, perhaps. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

15XX in India

The "15XX in India" series of articles were posted to AfD separately (instead of bundling). The discussion is really fractured since the issue is of a bundled nature. I was considering adding the bundle to the first discussion, copy-pasting the other AfD comments, and closing the others as procedural, but wasn't sure it fit the non-admin closure criteria. I'm happy to do it, but I wanted to check for consensus on the best course of action. czar · · 16:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia for deletion

She is a Princess of Gwalior city. Her wiki article is necessary. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyadarshini Raje Scindia rather than here. Hut 8.5 09:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Free Press (magazine)

Would somebody please check on the status of this AfD, including its strange history? I'm wondering about 2 things. 1) Why was it closed as a keep and then three days later relisted? 2) Why isn't is it currently on any list? The only way to get to its AfD discussion is through the article. I'm not sure what is going on here as I've never seen anything like this. Crtew (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the closing admin reconsidered their action and decided to relist instead. A bit unusual, but not unheard of. The debate is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 2, it's not true that the only way to get there is from the article. Hut 8.5 23:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people also find debates by going through topics at CAT:AFD - and open debates get listed automagically. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Complete Deletion Nomination

Could a registered user help me complete the deletion nomination for Helana_Brigman. I have left comments on the talk page detailing the reason. I am not a registered user and need someone to complete this work for me. Thank you for your help. 216.116.162.226 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)